Cricket 1897

70 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r il 15, 1897. AUGUST. 27. Penzance, Cornwall v. Glamorganshire 27. Northampton, Northants v. Surrey Second X I. 27. Trowbridge. Wilts v- Monmouthshire ‘29. Oval, Surrey Second X I. v. Durham 30. Scarborough, Gentlemen v. Players 30. Brighton, Sussex v. Surrey 30. Taunton, Somerset v. Hants 30. Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Derbyshire 30. Lord’s* M.C.C. v. Oxfordshire SEPTEMBER. 2. Scarborough, North v. South 9. Hastings, North v. South 13. Hastings, Gentlemen v. Players PRESENT D A Y CR ICKET . B y G eorge L aoy . (Continued from page 55.) But the degradation of the ethics of the game is not the only evil the County Championship has accomplished. It is fast becoming—nay, I believe I do not exaggerate when I say it has become— one of the greatest mediums for gambling in the kingdom. If things are allowed to go on as at present the time is not far distant when rows of bookmakers mounted on their boxes will bawl out their odds all round the outer riDg. As it is, the amount of betting that goes on in respect of this contest is frightful. Now I am no milksop—anyone that knows me would well-nigh die of laughter at the description—but I know too well the evils gambling of this widespread kind brings in its train. I do not refer so much to the outsiders, who put their money on, lose it, and go to the devil. I can regard them with perfect equanimity, and solace them with a sympathetic “ Serve you right.” But what I do dread is the effects on the players themselves. Do we want our cricketers brought under the same influences, and reduced to the s ime moral level, as league footballers, cyclists, runners, jockeys, or dealers in the Kaffir Circus, or the Westralian Market? For years cricket has been the one pure spectacular sport left to us, but under present conditions it cannot remain so. Matches will be bought and sold as fre­ quently as contests of some other kinds are. A professional cricketer is just as other men, but he has behind him to keep him straight long years of traditions of high and pure sportsmanship. But these traditions can be sapped and undermined by unhealthy surrpundings, until at last they fade from the memory, are lost in oblivion, and all their controlling in­ fluence ceases to operate. Abolish the County Championship with all speed then, and replace in the season’s programme some of the interesting matches which have been abandoned. As ut present constituted it is nothing but a mere farce, which does not even give the data it professes t o—viz., the relative strength of the contending counties. All i : does is to decide bets, give occupation to cricket editors and amateur critics, and degrade the game to an £ s. d. level. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is desirable that some method of stating in terms of arithmetic which county his performed best during the season, the scheme devised by the M.C.C. is, I think, the most inept conceivable. In the first place, the system of scoring by points i-i, under any circumstances, compelled to give fallacious results. If every county played every other one the number of points obtained would still present false values, because certain counties are con­ siderably stronger than others, and these strong sides play two matches less against those of their own class than the weaker ones do, and two more against the weaker class than the weak ones do. That is to say, Yorkshire does not play and risk defeat at the hands of Yorkshire, but does have the satisfaction of twice thrashing Leicester; while Leicester is compelled to play Yorkshire, but has no chance of gaining a couple of points by meeting Leicester. A little consideration will show that this places the two counties at a distance apirt in the table of points which is far greater than the actual rela­ tive strength warrants. But when some of the counties only play a limited number of matches against the stronger class, the fictitious values of the tables of points is accentuated. If all the counties were of approximately equal strength this of course would be rectified by the provision which makes the points proportional; but as they are not, this provision makes the final figures of no more value than they would be without it. In the cise of Middlesex it is as certain as anything can be in the domain of cricket that, if that county had last season played Derby, Warwick, Leicester, Essex, and Hants, it would have won more matches with these counties than it would have lost, and thus be awarded a greater number of points. Indeed, it is quite on the cards that it would have come out at the head of the list. Other counties would also have had their final positions considerably modified. But apart from these blemishes, the M.C.C. scheme possesses others. Contra­ dictory as it may seem, it not only encourages stonewalling for the purpose of drawing games, but at the same time it also encourages attempts to win matches by mere generalship and sharp practices. For it is clear that so long as a match is not lost a draw is just as valu­ able as a win in a scheme which brackets as equal two sides, one of which wins all its matches, and another which wins one, or any other number, and draws all the rest, and of course it is much safer merely to keep up the sticks than to attempt a win by risky hitting. Now I am not among those who look upon a draw qua draw as something to be avoided at all cost. It is not the draw itself, but the method by which it was brought about, which in my opinion has to be considered. Indeed, I may say that for my own part, if the cricket has been good and brilliant, and the match conducted in a harmonious and chivalrous spirit, I am perfectly in­ different as to whether it is drawn or not. Nay, I go further than this, and maintain that if under these conditions the sides are well matched, and the margin between them trifling, then a draw is decidedly the best result to be obtained. Wherein consists the honour and glory of winning a match by a couple of runs ? No match was ever played in which there were not a couple of runs obtained by the most unmitigated luck, with which those playing had no more to do than the man in the moon ; and these two lucky runs it was which won the match. What is there to shout about in that ? I believe, too that the excitement of these closely fought contests is injurious to the best interests of the game. No doubt there are multitudes of constitutions which find enjoyment in it, but it is the excitement qua excitement, not the cricket, they enjoy. They would be just as pleased with a collision between a couple of trains, a rough and tumble riotous foot­ ball match, a fire, or an execution. These kind of people are better off the cricket ground; they don’t come to see the cricket, but to have their flesh made to creep. Those who love cricket for its own sake want no such excitement to add zest to their enjoyment, and its in­ fluence is deleterious alike upon players and spectators. But a draw that is achieved by deliberate and discreditable tactics of stonewalling stands on quite another footing. The true end of cricket is for the in side to make runs, and to make them in as an attractive way as possible, and for the out side to prevent the bats­ men getting runs, and get them out by fair and chivalrous means. To stone­ wall, to protect the wicket with the body, and to refuse to even attempt to make runs, is not cricket at all, and those who practise these methods have mistaken their vocation; I would suggest that they ought to have been bookies. On the other hand, the scheme en­ courages the exercise of all manner of cunning manoeuvring and stratagem to encompass a win when a draw would not be equally valuable in the final figures. Nor is this the only way in which the scheme affects the question of drawn games. An examination of the tables compiled under it reveals the fact that a drawn game is much more prejudicial to a side whose losses exceed its wins, than to one which can show a surplusage of wins. Again, in the case of a county in the last-named position, a win does not advance its position on the list to nearly the same degree as a loss reduces i t ; while in the former the reverse is the case, and the higher or the lower they respectively stand the more pronounced is the operation of this rule. The scheme also gives unnecessary prominence to the mere luck of the side as a corporate whole, and minimises and eclipses the achievements of individual skill and effort, which in my judgment are far the most important and interesting points in the game. For my own part, although I have been a staunch Surreyite for forty years, I am much more dis­ appointed when a great and attractive batsman gets out for a small score, or plays a faulty innings, or when a great bowler meets with itl-success, than when through a combination of unlucky and obscure influences the county loses a match. Indeed, if twoorthree of the eleven have covered themselves with glory I care not a fig for the mere loss of the match. In short, the scheme is thoroughly un­ sound throughout, and its final figures